There has been some talk on Twitter recently about the absence of education technology in the recently published ITT Core Framework. I don’t think it’s surprising at all.
If we take a charitable view, perhaps the Department for Education, given its new-found love of education technology (as epitomised, perhaps, in its education technology strategy), has decided that technology should be as much a part of the woodwork as, say, electricity. In other words, just as the ITT document doesn’t say that teaching should take place in well-lit, well-temperatured and well-ventilated rooms (though perhaps it ought to have done), there is no need to state the obvious and mention technology.
That, as I say, is the charitable view. The more likely scenario is that nobody thought of it. Perhaps nobody working on the Framework had even heard of the ed tech strategy. I once commented to someone working at the DfE (or whatever it was called in those days: each new Government changes the name) that nobody seemed aware of what other sections in the Department were doing, resulting in gaps in some areas and mixed messages in others.
“We don’t even know what the person sitting at the next desk is working on”, was his rather dispiriting reply.
Has the situation changed since then? I doubt it. But if I’m wrong, the authors have missed some good opportunities to mention technology. In the section on marking and avoiding too much workload, for example, they might have mentioned taking advantage of automated marking, which can be very useful in some circumstances.
Anyway, I’ve read through the document and I would say that unless you have to read it, because you’re involved formally in initial teacher training, don’t. But if you do read it, regard it as a summary of research which may or may not be useful. There’s a comprehensive reference section, and I think that if you come across an interesting-looking statement, and you have the time, read the original research on which it was based.
A couple of things stand out for me as somewhat suspect. In one part we’re told that working memory is limited, and therefore to avoid it being overloaded complex material should be broken down into smaller steps.
Well, apart from the fact that it’s blindingly obvious that complex material should be broken down into simpler steps because it’s good practice to do so, I’m very sceptical of this current concern about overloading working memory. Saying that it’s limited says nothing of any practical use (how limited?), and how does working memory capacity get expanded unless it has to do more work?
The other thing I found puzzling was this:
“Make good use of expositions, by discussing and analysing with expert colleagues how to use concrete representation of abstract ideas (e.g. making use of analogies, metaphors, examples and non-examples).”
What I’d like to know is, what is a non-example? I need an example. (The phrase “examples and non-examples” reminds me of a sign I saw on a restaurant some years ago: “We specialise in vegetarian and non-vegetarian food”.)
You may not believe this, but I do try to restrain the cynical and critical sides of my nature. So, to prove it, even though on the whole I find this document patronising in some vague way (similar to announcements on the London Underground that the rain has made the ground slippery, so take care), suspect in some areas (I think some of the psychology-inspired statements are simplistic), too obvious for words in places and, finally, lacking credibility by not including education technology, I will end with an acknowledgement of the document’s strengths.
First, it’s good that the document exists. It’s nice to know that the government thinks that teaching is a profession, with the implication that the craft of teaching can be taught, that it’s not simply (or just) a case of charismatic, and oftentimes maverick, individuals inspiring kids. It’s a shame that so many iterations of the DfE have not thought teachers quite professional enough to trust them with important decisions, but we live in hope.
Secondly, the Framework is a good, quick-to-read, summary of useful points to remember (even if I don’t agree with all of them).
Thirdly, as I say, the References section is worth exploring. It should save you many hours in a library finding what is worth reading.
Here’s that link again: